Search Taxa

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what comes back (UUIDs, names, parent taxa, primary images), partially compensating for the missing output schema, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or whether the search is exact vs substring matching.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with zero filler: the action, the payload returned, and the formatting rule. The most decision-relevant content (what it searches and what it returns) is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and input normalization adequately. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing against the many sibling search/get tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds normalization semantics beyond the schema's 'lower-case recommended': non-alphabetic characters removed and whitespace trimmed. That tells the agent how PhyloPic actually indexes names, which is more than the schema conveys.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for phylogenetic nodes (taxa) in PhyloPic by name', and enumerates the return fields (UUIDs, names, parent taxa, primary images). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the very close sibling autocomplete_taxa, leaving the agent to infer which lookup path applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when this search is preferable to autocomplete_taxa or the get_node family. The only guidance offered concerns how to format the query string, which is parameter information rather than usage routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.